Originally posted by Hossfly
Flyboy say: >>>>>>>>>>>The biggest draw back I see is that if you go that way, you can not participate in most competitions or fun flys around the country. AMA is a big enough monopoly that they can dictate manditory participation in any contest that is sanctioned by them. This means a UMA insured cannot fly in an AMA contest. Most of the contests and flying fields are going to be AMA sanctioned at this point. If you don't care about flying anywhere else, UMA wouldn't be bad. I think you will find that a lot of people like to compete or visit other fields and would not look positivly at it for that reason. Just my 2 cents.
<<<<<<<<<<
Some confusion in the above post;
1. Any individual can be a member of both AMA and UMA if the individual so desires. That individual can then attend AMA Sanctioned Events.
2. Flying facilities are NOT SANCTIONED. Events are sanctioned. Clubs are Chartered. Several AMA clubs can form a Chapter.
3. AMA Chartered Clubs can operate off facilities where non-AMA members also operate. By the same token, facility providers can authorize UMA acceptance on their facilities.
4. An UMA Chartered Club could rid itself of AMA's bureaucratic autocracy.
5. UMA has very simple requirements. Only 5 persons are required to form a Chartered UMA Club. I can think of a fair number of operations that would be a lot easier with a "Club within a Club" and the lesser club could lease the big Club's facilities for a dollar a day for certain events. UMA appears to have no restrictions to "All UMA'' for any event the UMA group sponsors.
6. UMA definitely is the easy way for a general sport club to remain free of the giant paper machine now being legislated upon the recreational fliers.
Horrace
1. Agreed
2. Agreed
3. Question. Who is going to cover the land provider with insurance? UMA does not cover the land holder, as I read their info.
4. Question. Who is going to cover the club members with insurance? UMA covers the officers, not the membership of the club, as I understand it.
5. Observation. The club you describe has no liability coverage for the membership, nor the land holder. Easy, yes, safe.... doubtful. Maybe if the land holder, and club officers are the only members of the club this will work.
When you take into account the fact that half the claims are generated by clubs and are not flying type accidents, this scheme seems more than a little risky for the average member of an average club with more members than just the officers.